National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: MOS Survey
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Methodology Applied to MOS Cases." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14501.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Methodology Applied to MOS Cases." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14501.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Methodology Applied to MOS Cases." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2011. Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14501.
×
Page 39

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

37 AOSC (Airport Obstructions Standards Committee). 2005. AOSC Decision Document #04—Runway/Parallel Taxiway Separation Standards. Washington, DC: FAA, U.S. DOT. Ash, A., and M. Schwartz. 1999. “R2: A Useful Measure of Model Per- formance When Predicting a Dichotomous Outcome.” Statistics in Medicine, 18(4), 375–384. ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau). 2009. ATSB Transport Safety Report: Aviation Research and Analysis AR-2008-018(1) Final—Runway Excursions—Part 1: A Worldwide Review of Com- mercial Jet Aircraft Runway Excursions. Australia. Boeing. July 2009. Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents—Worldwide Operations 1959–2008. Brown, D. N., and O. O. Thompson. July 1973. “Lateral Distribution of Aircraft Traffic,” Miscellaneous Paper S-73-56. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Soils and Pavements Laboratory. Civil Aeronautics Authority. 1940. Airport Design Information. Technical Development Division—Airport Section, Washington, DC. Cohen-Nir, D., and R. Marchi. 2003. “Preliminary Analysis of Taxiway Deviation Data and Estimates of Airplane Wingtip Collision Proba- bility.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1850, 49–60. David, R. 1973. “Landing Strip/Runway Safety Area Dimensional Cri- teria.” Paper presented at Design Standards Meeting (FAA internal meeting), Dallas, TX, Oct 4, 1973. Eddowes, M., J. Hancox, and A. MacInnes. December 2001. Final Re- port on the Risk Analysis in Support of Aerodrome Design Rules— AEAT/RAIR/RD02325/R/002 Issue 1 (produced for the Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority). Cheshire, UK: AEA Technology. FAA. 1959. Airport Design Recommendations, Airport Engineering Data Sheet No. 24, Washington, DC. FAA. 1963. VFR Airports, AC 150/5300-1, Washington, DC. FAA. 1968. Utility Airports, AC 150/5300-4A, Washington, DC. FAA. 1983. Airport Design Standards—Transport Airports, AC 150/ 5300-12. Washington, DC. FAA. 1989. Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13, Airport Design (with changes). Washington, DC. FAA. 2008. “Missed Approach Rates” (DOT-FAA-AFS-450-48). Oklahoma City, OK: Flight Systems Laboratory. FAA. 2010. FAA Order 5200.11 (FAA Airports [ARP] Safety Manage- ment System). Federal Aviation Agency. 1961. Airport Design, Airport Engineering Branch, Airports Division, Bureau of Facilities and Materiel, Washington, DC. Flight Safety Foundation (FSF). 2000. ALAR Tool Kit, Briefing Note 8.3–Landing Distances, Flight Safety Digest. Flight Safety Foundation. 2009. “Reducing the Risk of Runway Excur- sions,” Report of the Runway Safety Initiative. Hall, J., M. Ayres Jr., D. Wong, A. Appleyard, M. Eddowes, H. Shirazi, R. Speir, D. Pitfield, O. Selezneva, and T. Puzin. 2008. ACRP Report 3: Analysis of Aircraft Overruns and Undershoots for Runway Safety Areas. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Hathi Trust Digital Library. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/ 005745193. HoSang, V. A. February 1975. Field Survey and Analysis of Aircraft Dis- tribution on Airport Pavements (FAA-RD-74-36). Washington, DC: FAA, U.S. DOT. Hosmer, D., and S. Lemeshow. 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. Hobo- ken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. ICAO. 1949. “Aerodromes.” Annex 14 to the Chicago Convention, 1st ed. ICAO. 1980. “Doc 9274—Manual on the Use of the Collision Risk Model (CRM) for ILS Operations,” 1st ed. ICAO. November 1981. “Aerodromes.” Annex 14 to the Chicago Con- vention, 1st ed., Amendment 35. ICAO. 1990. “Aerodromes, Aerodrome Design and Operations.” International Standards and Recommended Practices, Annex 14, Volume I, 2nd ed. ICAO. 2004. “Aerodromes, Aerodrome Design and Operations.” International Standards and Recommended Practices, Annex 14, Volume I, 4th ed. ICAO. 2006a. “Aerodrome Design Manual.” Doc 9157-AN/901, Part 1: Runways, 3rd ed. ICAO. 2006b. “Aerodromes, Aerodrome Design and Operations.” International Standards and Recommended Practices, Annex 14, Volume I, 5th ed. IFALPA (International Federation of Airline Pilots’ Associations). Ac- cessed 2008. IFALPA Runway Safety Policy (09POS01). Available from www.ifalpa.org/positionstatements/09POS01_Runway_Safety.pdf. NTSB. 2009. Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data—U.S. Air Carrier Operations: Calendar Year 2005 (NTSB/ARC-09/01, PB2009-106372, Notation 7502F). Washington, DC. References

Scholz, F. 2003a. Statistical Extreme Value Analysis of ANC Taxiway Centerline Deviations for 747 Aircraft (prepared under a coopera- tive research and development agreement between the FAA and Boeing). Scholz, F. 2003b. Statistical Extreme Value Analysis of JFK Taxiway Centerline Deviations for 747 Aircraft (prepared under a coopera- tive research and development agreement between the FAA and Boeing). Scholz, F. 2005. Statistical Extreme Value Analysis Concerning Risk of Wingtip to Wingtip or Fixed Object Collision for Taxiing Large Aircraft (prepared under a cooperative research and development agreement between the FAA and Boeing). 38

A-1 CONTENTS How to Use This Methodology, A-2 Limitations, A-2 Risk Criteria, A-3 Section 1 Taxiway to Taxiway or Taxiway to Taxilane, A-5 Section 2 Taxiway to Object, A-5 Section 3 Taxilane to Taxilane, A-7 Section 4 Taxilane to Object, A-8 Section 5 Runway to Taxiway, Taxilane, or Object, A-8 Attachment—Risk Plots, A-13 A P P E N D I X A Risk Assessment Methodology

Next: Chapter 6 - Conclusions and Recommendations »
Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!

TRB’s Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Report 51: Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards is intended to be used to support requests for modification of standards in those circumstances where the design criteria for separations between taxiways/taxilanes and other taxiways/taxilanes and fixed or movable objects as well as separations between taxiways and runways cannot be met.

The following appendices, included in the pdf and print version of the report, will be helpful in understanding the methodology.

  • Appendix A: Risk Assessment Methodology presents a methodology for five different types of circumstances: taxiway/taxilane to taxiway, taxiway to object, taxilane to taxilane, taxilane to an object, and runway to taxiway/taxilane or object;
  • Appendix F: Aircraft Database Summary presents a summary of aircraft characteristics by model; and
  • Appendix H: Analysis of MOS Cases summarizes information collected in the modification of standards survey and presents results of application of the methodology described in Appendix A to each modification of standards case.

Other report appendices, which are available online only, provide detail and information on the development of the methodology.

In addition, the project developed a

PowerPoint presentation

that may be useful for introducing and explaining the methodology to stakeholders.

In July 2021, an errata was posted for this publication: In Table 7 on page 25, the LDVO coefficient was changed from -3.088 to -13.088. The online version of the report has been corrected.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!